WP/18917/2006 of Ravuri Lakshmi, Vs District Collector, on 26 December 2007

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declarenotification, dated 07.05.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and the consequential noticesissued under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act as illegal.

The lands belonging to the petitioners were notified foracquisition by the impugned notification issued under Section 4(1) ofthe Act. The petitioners participated in the enquiry held by respondentNo.2. By endorsement, dated 19.06.2006, respondent No.2 evidentlyrejected the objections raised by the petitioners to the proposedacquisition and later, declaration under Section 6 of the Act wasissued. After receiving notices under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act,the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitionersinter alia averred that they are all small farmers and that there arealternative lands belonging to the Government available, which couldbe conveniently used for providing house sites to the poor people. Inthe reply affidavit, they have given details of various Government landssaid to be available for being utilized for the proposed purpose.

In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is stated thaton 17.06.2006, enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was held and thatthe petitioners attended the said enquiry and the objections raised bythem were rejected by respondent No.2 vide his endorsement, dated19.06.2006.

At the hearing, Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitionersdrew my attention to Circular, dated 22.04.2006 issued by Governmentof Andhra Pradesh, wherein certain guidelines are issued and clause(2) of paragraph 2 of the said Circular provides thatAcquisition/Purchase for House sites of private lands shall beundertaken only when there is no government land available in theVillage for house sites for identified beneficiaries. On the basis of thesaid Circular and on the strength of the details given in the replyaffidavit, learned counsel submitted that in view of availability ofGovernment lands, the proposed acquisition of the petitioners lands iswholly illegal. Learned counsel further submitted that under Section5A read with Section 3(c) of the Act, it is only the Collector, who isempowered to dispose of the objections raised by the petitioners andthat on the own showing of respondent No.2 in his counter-affidavit, herejected the objections by his endorsement, dated 19.06.2006. Learned counsel says that this is patently contrary to the provisions ofthe above mentioned provisions.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly stated that it is onlythe Collector, who is vested with the power to reject the objections andthe record does not reveal that the Collector passed any orderrejecting the objections, apart from endorsement, dated 19.06.2006,made by respondent No.2, wherein the objections of the petitioners arepurportedly rejected.

As I am satisfied that respondent No.1, who alone has the powerto consider and dispose of the objections of the petitioners, has notpassed any order, the declaration issued under Section 6 andsubsequent notices issued under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act areliable to be set aside.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Declaration issuedunder Section 6 and published in the District Gazette on 03.07.2006and notices issued under Sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act are quashed.The respondents are directed to hold enquiry under Section 5A of theAct afresh and consider all the objections of the petitioners, which arereferred to in this writ petition and any other objections, which may befiled by the petitioners within a period of two weeks from today, aftergiving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners.Respondent No.1 shall consider the same and pass an order beforeseeking to proceed further.

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

26[th] DECEMBER, 2007

Note: furnish c.c. in four (4) days. B/okvni